Review Reports - Rethinking Sustainable Tourism Management: Learning from the COVID-19 Pandemic to Co-Create Future of Krabi Tourism, Thailand

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Involving tourism stakeholders in sustainable tourism management and natural resource recovery post Covid-19 is timely and significant. It would be helpful if the authors can provide more evidence of the research design. e.g. details are required to demonstrate the process of in-depth interviews, focus group interviews, participated and non-participated observations in this research. The readers need to know the sampling framework and recruitment process for the data collection. Furthermore, how institutional theory is used to develop policies and a sustainable tourism management plan post-COVID-19 pandemic should also be discussed in comparison with existing studies. In the results sections, more citations from the participants will be supportive to the findings for the key themes.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer 1:

Involving tourism stakeholders in sustainable tourism management and natural resource recovery post Covid-19 is timely and significant.

1) It would be helpful if the authors can provide more evidence of the research design. e.g. details are required to demonstrate the process of in-depth interviews, focus group interviews, participated and non-participated observations in this research.

Response: Thank you very much for your encouraging feedback. We have added the details of data collection in the methodology (p.7-8).

2) The readers need to know the sampling framework and recruitment process for the data collection.

Response: Thank you very much for your comment. We have added the details of data collection in the methodology (p.7-8).

3) Furthermore, how institutional theory is used to develop policies and a sustainable tourism management plan post-COVID-19 pandemic should also be discussed in comparison with existing studies.

Response: Thank you very much for your comment. We have added the details of institutional theory used in developing policies in the process (p.13).

4) In the results sections, more citations from the participants will be supportive to the findings for the key themes.

Response: Thank you very much for your comment. We have added the details of more citations in the findings (p.15-16).

Authors would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers and the editors for providing valuable suggestions to improve the quality of our study. We have thoroughly revised the paper and we hope that it now meets the expectation of reviewers and editors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript reporting a study of Rethinking Sustainable Tourism Management: Learning from the COVID-19 Pandemic to Co-Create Future of Krabi Tourism, Thailand.

The paper presented deals with an exciting and important topic from the tourism point of view. It needs to be treated as a critical voice in the discussion, the proposed holistic approach is precious to the raised issue.

Overall the presentation is reasonably good, but it might still require some work.

- There is no information about the paper aim/aims (both in the Abstract section and in all paper).

- There is no discussion section. The Discussion section should reveal a literature review of studies published or accessed elsewhere. It is worth referring to the international context more extensively. Please, compare your research with similar research so you can be drawn an adequate conclusion.

- Moreover, the paper should have the Conclusions section.

I suggest adding a map with the location of Krabi province (line 89).

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer 2:

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript reporting a study of Rethinking Sustainable Tourism Management: Learning from the COVID-19 Pandemic to Co-Create Future of Krabi Tourism, Thailand.

Overall the presentation is reasonably good, but it might still require some work.

Response: Thank you very much for your encouraging feedback.

- There is no information about the paper aim/aims (both in the Abstract section and in all paper).

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added the paper’s aim in the abstract and introduction (p.1,3).

Response: Thank you for your comment. We added more details about the discussions. We sincerely hope that now it meets your expectation (p.16).

- Moreover, the paper should have the Conclusions section.

Response: Thank you very much for your encouraging feedback. We have added the summary with the discussion (p.16).

I suggest adding a map with the location of Krabi province (line 89).

Response: Thank you for your comment. We added more details in Figure 1. We sincerely hope that now it meets your expectation (p.3).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Revise the title, it is recommended to write it in order to co-create.... Shorten the abstract and focus the text of the abstract on the research objective, the sample, the results and the importance of the research. The introductory part should contain a little more focus on the importance of the research results, but also the specific reasons that motivated the authors to start this research. Reword the sentences, so that we can see the motive of the research. The authors deal with a very interesting topic, and a different one, showing the positive consequences, and mostly we come across a presentation of the negative implications of the pandemic. The literature review is quite correct and comprehensive. The methodology is completely clear, and the results are presented in a clearly readable table. No further explanation of the results is needed, the statistics are very simple. Kudos to the authors for the concept of the results and the discussion, a very interesting way of setting up the discussion. The manuscript seems refreshing after many heavy topics and highlighting negative implications for the world. Statistics are simple, but they are desirable in this kind of topic and work. It is not suggested to change any part of the methodology and results. It seems different and interesting. Example of preferred references:

Gajić, T., Petrović, M., Blešić, I., Vukolić, D., Milovanović, I., Radovanović, M., Vuković D., Kostić, M., Vuksanović, N., Milanović, S. (2022), COVID-19 Certificate as a Cutting-Edge Issue in Changing the Perception of Restaurants’ Visitors – Illustrations From Serbian Urban Centers. Frontiers in Psyhology, doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.914484. SSCI

Tepavčević, J., Blešić, I., Petrović, M.D., Vukosav, S., Bradić, M., Garača, V., Gajić, T.,Lukić, D. (2021), Personality Traits That Affect Travel Intentions during Pandemic COVID-19: The Case Study of Serbia. Sustainability, 13, 12845. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132212845.SSCI

The manuscript requires minimal corrections

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Reviewer 3:
Revise the title, it is recommended to write it in order to co-create.... Shorten the abstract and focus the text of the abstract on the research objective, the sample, the results and the importance of the research.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have revised abstract. We sincerely hope that now it meets your expectation (p.1).

The introductory part should contain a little more focus on the importance of the research results, but also the specific reasons that motivated the authors to start this research. Reword the sentences, so that we can see the motive of the research.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised in the introduction (p.2).

The authors deal with a very interesting topic, and a different one, showing the positive consequences, and mostly we come across a presentation of the negative implications of the pandemic. The literature review is quite correct and comprehensive. The methodology is completely clear, and the results are presented in a clearly readable table. No further explanation of the results is needed, the statistics are very simple. Kudos to the authors for the concept of the results and the discussion, a very interesting way of setting up the discussion. The manuscript seems refreshing after many heavy topics and highlighting negative implications for the world. Statistics are simple, but they are desirable in this kind of topic and work. It is not suggested to change any part of the methodology and results. It seems different and interesting.

Response: Thank you very much for your encouraging feedback.

Example of preferred references:

The manuscript requires minimal corrections

Response: Thank you very much for your comment. We have added these works in the findings and discussions (p.16-17).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I thank the authors for having replied to all the points requested with pertinent modifications.

The new version is much better presented.

There have stated clearly the main aim of the study.

The paper now has a more linear structure and is easier to understand.

I do not see any warrant objections to its publication in the Sustainability.